This article was originally published in Kaleidoscope‘s Spring 2025 print edition. It is being published as a separate online article now for easy access.
Recently, multiple universities across the nation have made headlines as targets of federal funding cuts by the Trump Administration. These cuts have mostly been directed at top private universities, including Harvard, Cornell and Columbia. Citing the reasons behind such cuts, President Trump has repeatedly claimed that the impacted schools have not done enough to put an end to antisemitism on their campuses. While private institutions have suffered the most drastic cuts to their funding so far, public universities including Stony Brook University have also been affected by reduced funding as of late.
Federal funding cuts and adjacent developments have already affected over 15 faculty members at Stony Brook University, with one grant on marine science becoming completely canceled. The ocean research grant had been operating in tandem with the Navy, and it centered around mapping oceanic regions to improve military technology. The $1.5 million grant, previously supported by the National Science Foundation, had its federal funding canceled due to the fact that the project’s documentation included the word “environment.” This particular word is now considered one of the many red flag terms under new restrictions. These restrictions were influenced by the Trump administration’s rollback of DEI- and climate change-related spending.
Following the rescinding of federal funding for the grant, Representative Nick LaLota reached out to the office of the Secretary of Defense. LaLota argued in favor of the research grant, claiming that while he supported eliminating wasteful spending, the Stony Brook project aligned with national defense and financial responsibility goals. He urged the administration to reinstate funding for the project.
The growing challenges surrounding the research community don’t stop at cancelled grants; decreasing funding also means less opportunities across the board for scholarships, stipends and entry-level positions. The 15% cap imposed by the National Institute of Health on indirect spending, which consists of costs to uphold facilities and administrative processes, has also caused changes in the lab. Purchasing office supplies and equipment, maintaining facilities, financing salaries of general management staff and providing transportation to research sites all fall under the category of indirect costs. Normally, indirect costs can make up 25 to 75% of all direct costs. The significant reduction to a 15% cap on spending will clearly have a ripple effect and force labs to adapt. While some researchers may find ways to innovate and fulfill their needs within the new budget, others will be forced to cut necessary corners.
In these times where federal funding is precarious, most professors and researchers have been hesitant to speak out about their current experiences. However, official statements released by leaders promised that Stony Brook University will maintain its culture of rigorous academic exploration.
The Statesman, the student newspaper of Stony Brook University, was able to obtain comments from the chair of the Department of Psychology, Joanne Davila. Davila confirmed that while staff have certainly been affected by cuts to federal programs, the department will continue to “encourage faculty to…engage in science to the best of their ability.” Additionally, the university’s interim president, Richard McCormick, released an official statement promising that the institution would navigate the transition and remain a center of innovation. The future remains uncertain, but, for now, Stony Brook University is upholding its mission of scientific discovery.
